September 6, 2017: First, the NFLPA supplemented its brief. Essentially, it argued that, whether it filed early or not, Judge Mazzant should weigh in on the arbitrator’s decision. Then, the NFL responded by doubling down on its position that the NFLPA acted prematurely. (“Just as a party cannot appeal a verdict while the jury is deliberating, it cannot petition to ‘vacate’ an arbitration decision that has not yet issued….This Court indisputably lacked power to grant Petitioner any relief at the time the suit was filed.”)

So, that leaves a couple of possibilities:

Judge Mazzant sides with the NFL, dismisses the case on procedural grounds, and the arbitrator’s decision stands for now. That means that Elliott returns to the field on November 5 for a Week 8 matchup with Kansas City. Unless…

Judge Mazzant sides with the NFL, dismisses the case on procedural grounds without prejudice, and the immediately NFLPA re-files its action (because the arbitrator has issued his ruling). This seems more likely than option #1. Judge Mazzant would not reach the merits of the NFLPA’s claim until next week at the earliest. That leaves Elliott’s Week 2 status in doubt.

Otherwise, Judge Mazzant could rule on the merits now.

Now, generally, judges don’t vacate arbitration awards. Indeed, when the arbitrator’s decision is in line with the NFL collective bargaining agreement, then the outcome will stand. So, if Judge Mazzant connects those dots, we won’t see Elliott until he returns in Week 8. If however, Judge Mazzant walks in the footsteps of NY federal judge Richard Berman, who overturned Tom Brady’s 4-game suspension, then Elliott could miss no time at all. Alternatively, Judge Mazzant could vacate the arbitration award and remand the case to the arbitrator to fix any underlying procedural defects. If that happens, Elliott returns immediately and would continue to play indefinitely.

Other far less likely options would involve:

Judge Mazzant siding with the NFL and staying the suspension pending appeal; or

Judge Mazzant reducing the suspension to something less than six games

Is this Deflate-Gate all over again?

Probably not.

Judge Berman’s decision rested on a few bedrock principles:

Tom Brady lacked notice that deflating footballs (as opposed to steroid use, for example) could lead to a 4-game suspension, as opposed to a mere fine. With Elliott, however, there is precedent for a suspension based on allegations of domestic violence. Indeed, the NFL has a personal conduct policy, which covers domestic violence. Still, the length of the suspensions has varied. So, that may cut in favor of Elliott. Then again, Judge Berman contrasted Brady’s predicament with other cases involving domestic violence:“In both the Ray Rice case and the Adrian Peterson case, the players could, perhaps, be said to appreciate that acts of domestic violence might be deemed “conduct detrimental.” And yet, in both of these cases, the players were disciplined only after findings were made under the specific domestic violence policy.” Obviously, that doesn’t bode well for Elliott.

Commissioner Goodell denied Brady the opportunity to examine the lead investigator.

Brady did not have access to the investigative files.

The NFLPA here argues a mixed bag for Elliott. That is, it argues that the underlying facts don’t support a six-game suspension plus Elliott was denied certain due process along the way. To me it reads a bit like spaghetti against the wall.

You know that scientist in the action movie who has all the right answers if only the government would just pay attention? If you want a nerdy employment-lawyer brain to help you solve HR-compliance issues proactively before the action sequence, as a Partner of a national law firm, FisherBroyles, LLP, I’m here to help. I'm not only an EEOC-approved trainer, I offer day-to-day employment counseling, workplace audits and investigations, and other prophylactic measures to keep your workplace working while you focus on running your business. And for those employers in the midst of conflict, I bring all of my know-how to bear as your zealous advocate. I’m a trial-tested, experienced litigator that has represented companies of all sizes in a veritable alphabet soup of employment law claims, such as the ADA, ADEA, CEPA, FMLA, FLSA, NJLAD, PHRA, Title VII, and USERRA. I also help clients litigate disputes involving restrictive covenants such as non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, as well as conflicts over use of trade secrets and other confidential information. For more about me, my practice, and my firm, click on my full bio.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.